Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[Gramps]

You just answered your own question, an edit is an edit is an edit. So when you factor in that with the fact that the bible was written about the life of a man that most of the authors only heard about and never met - it's hard to believe that the 'word of god' is anything but a loosely bound collection of bronze age tales being used to sell salvation.

As usual, ignoring the first three points and trying to twist the 4th to fit your agenda.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Gramps - Is it a fact that Jesus lived? If so, is a fact that he lived 2000 years ago? If your answers to the last two questions is yes, then what is your basis?

 

[Septic]

As usual, ignoring the first three points and trying to twist the 4th to fit your agenda.

What other points did you make? That the existence of a god can't be 'not proven' through science. Uh. Ok? I'm not sure what part of anything I said this was directed at - but ok.

And for the record, stating facts is not a twisted point for my "agenda" of reason. You admitted that the bible is being edited, heck it continues to be edited. How is that a twisted point?

 

[Gramps]

Gramps - Is it a fact that Jesus lived? If so, is a fact that he lived 2000 years ago? If your answers to the last two questions is yes, then what is your basis?

There is sufficient evidence for the open minded person to show yes Jesus actually lived., for those that have an agenda to deny Jesus lived, they will not accept the evidence.

As you and I both are well aware, you and a few others on here would not accept anything that validates that yes Christ did walk this earth 2,000 years ago. No I cannot prove to you absolutely that Jesus lived on Earth 2,000 years ago, however there is sufficient evidence to show he did.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

There is sufficient evidence for the open minded person to show yes Jesus actually lived., for those that have an agenda to deny Jesus lived, they will not accept the evidence.

As you and I both are well aware, you and a few others on here would not accept anything that validates that yes Christ did walk this earth 2,000 years ago. No I cannot prove to you absolutely that Jesus lived on Earth 2,000 years ago, however there is sufficient evidence to show he did.

You evaded with Hillary Clinton like skill.

Is it a fact? Or is there evidence that supports that conclusion? As you've been advocating the two are different.

 

[Gramps]

You evaded with Hillary Clinton like skill.

Is it a fact? Or is there evidence that supports that conclusion? As you've been advocating the two are different.

I am not evading anything. There is plenty of recorded dated evidence to support that Jesus did in fact live on earth approx 2000 years ago. People who walked with Jesus recorded it. There are scrolls that archeologists have discovered by other writers that lived with Jesus, not included in the Bible, that support he lived on earth.

As I said earlier you will not accept anything that supports Jesus Christ.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I am not evading anything. There is plenty of recorded dated evidence to support that Jesus did in fact live on earth approx 2000 years ago. People who walked with Jesus recorded it. There are scrolls that archeologists have discovered by other writers that lived with Jesus, not included in the Bible, that support he lived on earth.

As I said earlier you will not accept anything that supports Jesus Christ.

Come on, Gramps. You like to throw out the victim card and then you attack by saying I don't believe that Jesus existed. I haven't advocated one position over another. I was discussing what you believe constitutes a fact. BTW, you seem to have a very flexible view of the concept which is what I was attempting to point out. Most scholars believe, as I do, that Jesus lived. However, it cannot be conclusively proven and therefore is not a undisputed fact.

 

[MercyPercy]

I am not evading anything. There is plenty of recorded dated evidence to support that Jesus did in fact live on earth approx 2000 years ago. People who walked with Jesus recorded it. There are scrolls that archeologists have discovered by other writers that lived with Jesus, not included in the Bible, that support he lived on earth.

Well..

Authorship of the New Testament - RationalWiki

There's not really any evidence of that, Gramps. Historians tend to agree that no one who would have actually walked with Jesus were the actual authors of the gospels, and Paul only claims to have seen Jesus in his dream.

As I said earlier you will not accept anything that supports Jesus Christ.

You're being unfair here, Gramps. I don't personally know if Jesus walked the earth or not, but I do believe there is enough evidence that one could logically infer that he did. This isn't about not accepting anything that supports Jesus, it was just an exercise in attempting to get you to understand the double standard you've been applying to what you think constitutes a fact.

 

[SergeantVol]

Well..

Authorship of the New Testament - RationalWiki

There's not really any evidence of that, Gramps. Historians tend to agree that no one who would have actually walked with Jesus were the actual authors of the gospels, and Paul only claims to have seen Jesus in his dream.



You're being unfair here, Gramps. I don't personally know if Jesus walked the earth or not, but I do believe there is enough evidence that one could logically infer that he did. This isn't about not accepting anything that supports Jesus, it was just an exercise in attempting to get you to understand the double standard you've been applying to what you think constitutes a fact.

-1 for wiki reference. I have for a fact edited many wiki pages to make them hilarious (i.e. Nick Saban's and Lane Kiffin's wiki pages).

 

[MercyPercy]

-1 for wiki reference. I have for a fact edited many wiki pages to make them hilarious (i.e. Nick Saban's and Lane Kiffin's wiki pages).

You are welcome to examine and dispute the references that are clearly given at the bottom of the page.

 

[Gramps]

Come on, Gramps. You like to throw out the victim card and then you attack by saying I don't believe that Jesus existed. I haven't advocated one position over another. I was discussing what you believe constitutes a fact. BTW, you seem to have a very flexible view of the concept which is what I was attempting to point out. Most scholars believe, as I do, that Jesus lived. However, it cannot be conclusively proven and therefore is not a undisputed fact.

And what victim card am I throwing out?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Council of Nicea..
Can embed cuz of naughty language..fun to watch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEAyTLQBVns

 

[ClearwaterVol]

And what victim card am I throwing out?

Complaining of "Christian bashing" I would think qualifies.

 

[SergeantVol]

You are welcome to examine and dispute the references that are clearly given at the bottom of the page.

Most of them link to other rationalwiki pages or atheist based websites. Some are not even that and are just comments.

 

[MercyPercy]

Most of them link to other rationalwiki pages or atheist based websites. Some are not even that and are just comments.

What specifically do you disagree with? That there isn't a scholarly consensus on whether any of the writers of the new testament were contemporaries of Jesus?

 

[SergeantVol]

What specifically do you disagree with? That there isn't a scholarly consensus on whether any of the writers of the new testament were contemporaries of Jesus?

I thought that was the whole point of the argument was presenting facts that have been evaluated and are scholarly in nature.

I am not criticizing you stance in the argument but am criticizing how you argue. I already know what I believe. In order to convince others that your side of the argument is right, you need to present a better case with vetted resources.

 

[SergeantVol]

Bible translation - RationalWiki

In this Rationalwiki page the author presents opinion. When presenting content on facts, there should be no opinion interjected. You are either proving or disproving a hypothesis. The author of this page adds their opinion.

"And dang it, which one is the correct version of the Bible? "

This is in the opening section of this page and it immediately makes me disregard anything else this page has to say. It makes me question the concept of Rationalwiki for allowing the interjection of opinion of this nature. Not all wiki is created equal. I find the dragonball wiki to be more factual than the rationalwiki.

 

[Obsessed]

Do you atheist tithe to your religion?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You are welcome to examine and dispute the references that are clearly given at the bottom of the page.

The Epistle of James has been traditionally attributed to James the Just since 253,[64][65] but, according to Dan McCartney, it is now common for scholars(who?) to disagree on its authorship.[66]

There is no need as wiki disputes itself. And when you hover over the "who" the message that pops up is that this information uses "too vague attribution or weasel words (noted as of July 2015)". In other words, someone (likely Mr. McCartney himself), included his opinion and has tried to vaguely claim support from "other scholars" to support his position.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Are the actual books edited or is it the translation of the actual transcripts being edited by large book companies in an effort to appease the world of today in order to sell more books?

If what you and everyone else is reading is edited, what does it matter. And if you don't have the originals (and nobody does), how would you even know what the originals said?

 

[MercyPercy]

I thought that was the whole point of the argument was presenting facts that have been evaluated and are scholarly in nature.

I am not criticizing you stance in the argument but am criticizing how you argue. I already know what I believe. In order to convince others that your side of the argument is right, you need to present a better case with vetted resources.

Is the Oxford Annotated Bible a vetted resource in your opinion?

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

I would suggest reading Bart Ehrman, he's a very prominent new testament scholar who provides great insight and evidence for the writers of the new testament not being contemporaries of Jesus himself. Here's an article to get you started.

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels : NPR


What do you believe, Sarge?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If what you and everyone else is reading is edited, what does it matter. And if you don't have the originals (and nobody does), how would you even know what the originals said?

I think you may have stumbled upon what many people consider an issue when taking something as the Gospel, so to speak.

 

[SergeantVol]

Is the Oxford Annotated Bible a vetted resource in your opinion?



I would suggest reading Bart Ehrman, he's a very prominent new testament scholar who provides great insight and evidence for the writers of the new testament not being contemporaries of Jesus himself. Here's an article to get you started.

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels : NPR


What do you believe, Sarge?

Bart Ehram is a self professed Gnostic. I am not sure that he has a dog in the fight since the Council of Nicea banned the Gnostics from attending.

As for my beliefs, I am more of an Intelligent Design kinda guy. There is too much complexity in this world to believe that it happened by chance. There are too many blank spaces and unanswered questions for me to believe that a divine entity was not involved in some way, shape, or form. I believe science lets us observe the miracles of the natural world. Statistically speaking, the odds that everything ended up the way they did are highly improbable. It is part of the reason I try to educate myself on many religions in general. I was raised Catholic though.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I am not evading anything. There is plenty of recorded dated evidence to support that Jesus did in fact live on earth approx 2000 years ago. People who walked with Jesus recorded it. There are scrolls that archeologists have discovered by other writers that lived with Jesus, not included in the Bible, that support he lived on earth.

As I said earlier you will not accept anything that supports Jesus Christ.

I'm not trying to attack you but it blows my mind that you basically laugh at science for its attempts at dating but you accept what you posted as fact ; when if you compare the two, the evidence for an old earth so outweighs the evidence of an actual Jesus (never mind if he was actually divine or not).

Simply put, if you claim there is not enough evidence to support an old earth or evolution or whatever else you want to throw in, then if you are being consistent you would most certainly HAVE to come to the same conclusion about Jesus and frankly the Bible in general.

 

[MercyPercy]

There is no need as wiki disputes itself. And when you hover over the "who" the message that pops up is that this information uses "too vague attribution or weasel words (noted as of July 2015)". In other words, someone (likely Mr. McCartney himself), included his opinion and has tried to vaguely claim support from "other scholars" to support his position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

Mark is the primary source for information about Jesus... Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[73][74][75]

[73]Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
[74]Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
[75]Eisenman, Robert H. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.

Again, I'm not saying I believe Jesus as a historical figure did not exist for sure, I think he probably did. However, there is no real evidence for Gramps' claim that anyone who personally knew Jesus wrote things about him.